The Council said that in the liturgical reform, nothing was to be changed unless it was for the true good of the people. The Council Fathers mandated

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The verdict is still out on that, and it remains a topic of lively and reasoned (for the most part) discussion both pro and con. Some call for a “reform of the reform”, and as loyal sons and daughters of the Church, that is their prerogative. Some approach it as though the Novus Ordo Missae fell down from heaven, all four eucharistic prayers, all variations, wholly and entirely perfect. I wouldn’t go that far, but some do.

Depends on who you talk to. We’ve had it just shy of fifty years. In “Catholic time”, that is day before yesterday. Give it time.
 
Last edited:
IMO, does not matter. I choose to obey. The elements are present, Christ is made manifest - what else matters?

I allow the Church to decide. They answer for their prudence, I answer for my obedience.
 
I assume the OP is referring to this statement from Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy:
Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.
Click to expand...
With regard to the first clause, I think we should assume Pope Paul thought they were needed for the good of the Church. Unfortunately, hindsight being 20/20, they didn’t work as intended. Belief in the real presence and understanding of the meaning of Mass has plummeted, liturgical abuses went way up, and Mass attendance and participation on Sundays has plummeted (not to mention vocations to the priesthood plummeting). A point of unity in the Church, became a source of division (and not just between the promoters of the old versus the new, but with rites appearing very different from parish to parish).

With regard to the second clause, while it can be hard to draw a bright line rule as to what is organic and what is not, I don’t see how the new Missal could be seen as an organic development of the older one under any definition of “organic” that doesn’t make it completely meaningless.

That being said, changes being “organic” is not an absolute and indispensible principle, even if it is a good general one. The Church’s authority here is broad. As the Council of Trent said:
It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,–or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places.
Click to expand...
And Pius XII in Mediator Dei:
  1. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.
Click to expand...
And the same in Sacramentum Ordinis:
…every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
True, but not what Christ Himself has ordained. C.f. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis by PJPII.
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
They answer for their prudence, I answer for my obedience.
Click to expand...
That is a very profound thought, and I had never considered it quite that way.

However, people did speak up, they did call attention to what they saw as very real problems. Some stayed well within the bounds of “obedience”, and in the absence of the TLM, they sought out Eastern liturgies or those rare places where the TLM was offered by indult, private Masses of elderly priests, and so on. Some went a bit further (Lefebvre et al). Some went too far (sedevacantists and outright schismatics). Finally the Church conceded that they did have many good points, and that Quo primum was never abrogated. The faithful who prefer the TLM, or at least a large percentage of them in this country anyway, have a diocesan TLM available every Sunday at non-heroic driving distances. Those who prefer the Novus Ordo have it available everywhere. It’s a “win-win” for everyone. But if nobody had spoken up, if everyone had said “well, TLM, it was nice knowing you, let’s just pack it in, think only good thoughts about the changes, and all walk together into the bright new sunrise”, we would have none of this. And obviously the Church thought it was a good idea to grant this permission, otherwise she wouldn’t have done it.
 
The Eleventh Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, held from 2-23 October 2005 in the Vatican, gratefully acknowledged the guidance of the Holy Spirit in this rich history. In a particular way, the Synod Fathers acknowledged and reaffirmed the beneficial influence on the Church’s life of the liturgical renewal which began with the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. The Synod of Bishops was able to evaluate the reception of the renewal in the years following the Council. There were many expressions of appreciation. The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal, whose riches are yet to be fully explored. Concretely, the changes which the Council called for need to be understood within the overall unity of the historical development of the rite itself, without the introduction of artificial discontinuities.
Benedict XVI Sacramentum Caritatis 3
Click to expand...
This is my answer.
 
po18guy said:
IMO, does not matter. I choose to obey. The elements are present, Christ is made manifest - what else matters?

I allow the Church to decide. They answer for their prudence, I answer for my obedience.
Click to expand...
Should be a sticky on all these types of threads.
 
In one sense, yes.
In another: It’s tricky.
We have seen over the years (and not simply in the liturgy or other areas in the church, but societal, and world-wide) a kind of creeping incrementalism.
One tiny tweak, one little ‘personalization’, one small change.
No big deal so long as the ‘end’ remains the same, right?

It’s the frog in the pan of water. Hey, as long as the frog is swimming around in the water (frogs needing to have water), it’s OK, right? It’s not like the frog is being made to swim in oil or gasoline or something. He’s in water which he needs.

And as for the temp going up? Well you don’t want the frog freezing, right? So the temp goes up little by little and the frog doesn’t even notice at first. Little changes in temp of the water which the frog needs to survive. All good, right?

And then boom. The heat goes up little by little and finally; that water is no longer just water to swim in, cool water, warm water, hot water, hotter water; it is now boiling water.

And the frog is cooked.

The water has gone from what was necessary for survival to the means that did the old frog in.
 
Saint Francis of Assisi was well acquainted with dissension in the Church. Thus, he vowed perfect obedience to his Bishop in all things…

…except sin.

I can find no better example.
 
I agree. The tricky part comes with discerning when obedience could be sin. St. Francis certainly did not live in a perfect era and I’m sure his bishop (or bishops) weren’t perfect either.

OTOH St. Francis did not live for example during the Arian heresy times. I imagine that for most of the saints of that time it was a little harder to be obedient when the majority of one’s bishops were anything but.
 
I don’t see that as tricky at all. What I would do is to consider: Is it something I would, should or have confessed?

Then, to paraphrase Nike: “Just don’t do it.” The blessing here for women is that they have perfect intuition*. If it seems wrong, something about it is wrong.

*The ‘Gift of Fear’ by Gavin DeBecker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top